It became clear to me the day after the primary elections that I’d been greatly remiss. With all the campaign rhetoric out there, everyone needs a political phrase interpreter.

I regret the oversight, but you can use this in the runoff election and save it for future elections. Here’s the glossary of terms necessary to understand what the candidates mean:

Good ole’ boy: A derogatory term for “my opponent” that is used by challengers who can’t compete on issues or experience, or by those whose views are not accepted by people holding office. Example: “I will put an end to good ole’ boy politics.”

I will cut your taxes: User is either fiscally irresponsible, knows nothing about the job, is lying or is smarter than anyone else who’s held the job in the last two decades.

Conservative: What most Georgia politicians claim to be. This should not be confused with “fiscal conservative.” Example: “I’m a true conservative, not a tree-hugging, tax-and-spend, terrorist-supporting liberal.”

Fiscal conservative: Anyone running for office. There are none actually in office. Typically, they promise to lower taxes, end “earmarks” and balance the budget. The way to tell if they’re lying is to see if their lips are moving.

Born-again Christian: Better, more trustworthy and holier than a regular Christian; someone God wants to win this election.

Experience: This often has no meaning. Example: “I was born and raised in Jackson County.”

Qualifications: See “experience.” Example: “I’m a graduate of Commerce High School and a lifelong member of the NRA.”

Patriotic: Reference to speaker’s red, white and blue tie and American flag lapel pin that makes him a better American than his opponent. Does not require his or her support of taxes to fund the government he or she loves or to fight its wars.

Support our men and women in harm’s way: The speaker wears a flag lapel pin and holds the belief that Iraq is responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That support does not extend to taxes to fund our men and women in harm’s way and generally means they should remain in harm’s way until Iraq is officially the 51st state.

Leader: Me, not my opponent.

Leadership: What you will get if you elect the speaker. If you elect his opponent, you’ll get good ole’ boy politics.

Smart growth: Only growth the speaker thinks is appropriate, and he or she will define that as he or she goes along. The implication is that growth heretofore has been “dumb.”

Secure our borders: If you elect me, it will be against the law to speak Spanish except at Mexican restaurants.

The definition of “Good ole’ boy” is a little inaccurate. The term good ole’ boy is the southern vernacular for nepotism or cronyism. It’s all about who you’re related to or who you know. While this term may have been used incorrectly by some candidates, the correct definition of “Good ole’ boy” refers to a candidate who is unable to compete on the issues or experience (unless they are using the definition of experience and qualifications used in this article) but gets elected or stays in office anyway because they are part of the clique – the Good ole’ boy network. A Good ole’ boy in office is certain to return favors and scratch the backs of other good ole’ boys to ensure that the inherent right to power for their elitist, insular society is never threatened or challenged. A good ole’ boy is also not defined by having a differing viewpoint from those making the good ole’ boy accusation but rather by basing his viewpoints on the interests of relatives and friends, often times neglecting the will of the people; however, the other members of the good ole’ boy network look out for their own and are always willing to spin public perception to suit their agendas.

A prime example of Good ole’ boy politics was demonstrated in recent weeks in the District 2 commission primary. This publication stated that the mayor’s son “deserved” the support of the voters. Why did this candidate deserve support of the voters? He never addressed any of the issues. The only “qualifications” were the type of experience referenced in this article (graduate of Commerce High School, member of First Baptist Church, etc.). The editor of this publication, a former employee of the mayor, is apparently a close neighbor of the mayor’s son. He needed to help out a “good ole’ boy” in the past election by printing an endorsement for this candidate. Never mind the incumbent actually had positions on the issues and a good record of public service during his term. You can’t let a good ole’ boy down. It's the mayor's son. It's his right.

It is my interpretation of an election is to vote for the right man for the job. Apparently, voters did not agree with the positions in which he stood, nor did they agree on his so called "good record". I would be willing to bet that if any "Joe Blow" had run against the incumbent he still would have lost. He won his election because the people wanted the "other man" out and now the people wanted Mr. Thompson out. Mr Hardy now has the same opportunity that Mr. Thompson was awarded a few years ago.
Good luck Mr. Hardy!!! Show us what you've got.

I for one believe Mr. Thompson had a good record that has benefitted the citizens of the district (such as paving roads, fixing dangerous intersections, supplying gas at a lower cost to the city of Commerce, etc). I don't believe it was his positions on the issues which the voters disagreed. I believe it was the highly publicized personal issues he experienced early in his term. I think voters confused the personal issues and the public service issues concerning Mr. Thompson. Looking at Mr. Thompson's record in office, it doesn't appear the personal issues affected his judgement and decisions concerning county affairs. If you look solely at his record in office, it is hard to not agree with the positions in which he stood. Unfortunately, a perception based on the personal issues became the public service reality for many uninformed citizens such as the author of this comment and others who simply wanted the "other man". I would challenge you to name one public service issue where Mr. Thompson made the wrong decision, one that was not made in the best interest of the county and the citizens of the district. I don't think you can adequately argue this on the basis of issues.

Hardy was the right man for the job because the voters clearly stated almost 2 to 1 that he was. The election is over...time to realize that and move on. Besides...based on history, the citizens of District 2 will find reason to want Hardy out too just like they did Sammy and now Jody.

What makes him the right man for the job??? Ask the hundreds of people that voted for him. The reason I think he is the right man for the job is because he chose to take the high road when the insults started flying about him. He could have fought back with the same slander that was being thrown at him, but he did not. I have spoken with many people he has worked with in various community organizations and have found that he has developed a working relationship with everyone he has come in contact with. Being able to work with others for the common good of the team is important and the last time I checked the dictionary for the spelling of team, it did not have an "I" in it.
Mr. Hardy won and life goes on. Let us give him a chance to do what he told us he was going to do. I feel that all this questioning and writing about he and his qualifications is going to give you nothing more than an ulcer. Move on to something else, this county has starving children.

Hmmm....this "team" line of reasoning sounds very familiar to Mr. Beardsley's published endorsement. The people have spoken and the election is over, but it is very evident that the good ole' boy example referenced by the first post where they "spin public perception" has worked on this poster. I agree with the poster of #2.1. The "basis of issues" is not a reality for everyone. Just look at this repitition of a canned argument, devoid of independent thought (much less the issues). I do think that we should let the issue with the election results go; however, my issue is not with the election results, but with the good ole' boy mentality which has proven to be a formidable force in the local political landscape. The "let us give him a chance to do what he told us he was going to do" line comes from someone who believes this candidate actually told us what he was going to do if elected. She bought the good ole' boy propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Maybe these good ole' boys will, however, be able to feed all of the county's starving children.

Just because the people "here" voted for the "Hardy Boys" does not mean that they made the right decision! There are a lot of "Good Ole Boy" issues in this town right along with the election. I am sick and tired of the only issue on the table is the Walgreens sign. Might get a lttle competition in the town and might bring "Some jobs" to the town we have been trying to prospure! So What is the problem? Took how many weeks and how much wasted time and money to figure out that a sign is not quite the most important issue on the table. Many more things need to be discussed and resolved that are much more important and valuable.

What insults? Thompson was concerned about a very obvious conflict. How is that an insult? Hardy is the one who had callers contacting voters spreading bad things about Thompson. I know, they called me and said he wasn't qualified and had financial troubles years ago. So what? He is the only level headed one on the BOC.

I feel there are still too many unanswered questions about Hardy's real intentions.

You sound like an atheist trying to convince Christians that God does not exist. Majority of society are Christians and I would be willing to bet that you would not be able to change their minds, just like your opinion will not change the mind of the voters.
Majority of the people do not feel the way you do, but that does not make them stupid. Do not make a fool out yourself trying to make a fool out of them.

Keep in mind the majority is not always right. A majority of Germans supported Hitler and the Nazis in their rise to power.

I understand that people are not stupid because they disagree with an opinion, but basing a position on feelings and emotions and being incapable of offering facts and using logic can easily lead someone to that conclusion.

hey anon i.ve read your posts and don't see what all the fuss is all about it sounds like you just don't like the hardy family it is my guess that you will be voting for obama also i think that if your canidates had any substance then they would be elected your local boy lost and so will your national boy quit the mud slinging before your found out and then you will see first hand that good ole boy mentality you speak of p.s. we do know better !! we just don't like the change slogan thats being force fed to us

I believe that statement was meant as sarcastic. Looks like you've proven it twice!

Add Comment

Name

Email

Homepage

In reply to

Comment

Phone*

What is two plus eight?

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:

Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.